Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.
In Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:47:32 -0500 Brian cum veritate scripsit :
I am cc'ing Richard Furse, because he would probably be interested in this thread.
To summarize, the possible licenses are :
b) BSD style license without the advertizing clause
c) XFree86 license
d) something new which is GPL compatible (not recommended)
What would be the possible problem with making it LGPL ?
For example, would a BSD-licensed program be able to #include <ladspa.h>
and still stay BSD ?
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:22:19AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > ladspa.h is code, and the API specification of a plugin API,
> > and currenty does not have a display of what license it is distributed
> > People in the <firstname.lastname@example.org> list
> > are discussing what license to distribute it under.
> > What should be the best license to suggest ?
> > It's used in some GPL programs.
> The XFree86 license, or a similar BSD style license with no advertising
> clause would work just fine. These licenses are compatible with the GPL,
> LGPL, and just about every other Free Software license.
email@example.com : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4